Slashdot Mirror
US House of Reps. Bans "Cybersquatting"
sredding writes "The House has voted to ban "cybersquatting", the pre-empting of Internet domain names with the aim of selling those names to companies or people with trademark associations to them. " Sounds nice right? Well, there maybe some downsides to the bill. The Clinton Administration, however, opposes the bill, saying courts are the best place to settle disputes.
Anyway, with the regular caveat that "I am not a lawyer (IANAL)... I think I am with the majority on the idea that "cybersquatting" is bad, however, I don't think that there is really an effective legal remedy to the problem. Here's why:
- Because the courts have generally held that parody is a protected form of free speech, some or all of this law may in fact be unconstitutional.
- Leaving it to the courts doesn't necessarily work either, because often, the side with the most legal $ wins.
- Calling a domain name "intellectual property" is deceptive as well, because in reality, a domain name is just an "advertising cover" for an IP address.
- This leaves the gray area of trademark infringement as the only valid area of law that I can think of which covers the problem.
The only thing that I can think of that might work is for the domain registrars to include a provision in their registration documents for binding arbitration in the event of a contested domain name. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this would mostly take the issue out of the courts, and seems like it would be a useful remedy for the majority of the "cybersquatting" problems which might come up in the future. (I don't know how this would apply to previously registered domains, unless it was made a requirement upon renewel of the registration)Comments anyone?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
1. Eliminate the 90 day grace period for payment. A lot of squatters are using scripts to re-register every 90 days to keep names without ever paying. Make it so it must be payable (by CC) up front at time of registration.
.inc, .sex, .usa, .etc, and at least 20 to 40 more) many of which are pretty catchy sounding and would water-down the value of .com making it less attractive to snap up in the first place. To grab exclusivity on a domain name would mean having to grab ALL the extensions which could be difficult and expensive. (especially if you have to pay up front like suggestion #1)
2. Create a FLOOD of easily available 3 letter extensions (.biz,
Let's say you love white horses. Off you go with www.whitehorse.org. Is that too close to whitehouse.gov?
What I'm saying is, it's downright silly to do this, because it's unenforceable. You'll always stumble upon examples of domain names that closely resemble an official one, but only as a coincidence. That means it's a law that'll have to be debated over and over again before the media.
Secondly, what about fair use? Isn't it fair use to do a parody site? If it is, then what about a parody site with a parody domain name to go with it?
The truth of the matter is, the Government feels that people are going to the wrong domain names because they can't tell a Government site from a normal site. So what? The same happens if you dial a Government phone number and end up dialing Luigi's pizza by mistake. Should they ban phone numbers closely resembling Government numbers, too?
Third, why is the Government allowed to protect the integrity of their websites, whereas the user cannot? What says that the US Government can have precedence when it comes to choosing a DNS entry?
Imagine, for instance, that the Government launches a site called 'www.slashdot.gov'. Can they then, were that bill passed, claim that Slashdot.org is using an illegal DNS entry? Why can't it be the opposite?
Let's hope this law is shot down before it becomes a reality. Not that I worry too much: it's gonna be unenforceable anyway.
"Knowledge = Power = Energy = Mass"